Performance and Nutritional Properties of Einkorn, Emmer and Rivet Wheat in Response to Different Rotational Position and Soil Tillage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Comments

 

This manuscript contributes to the exploration of field performance (cover, disease resistance, yield) and quality (protein, fats, fibre, polyphenols, flavonoids and antioxidant activity) of a number of cultivars of different species when organically grown in the United Kingdom. It shows the exploration of these parameters in response to different rotational positions and to shallow non-inversion tillage, a key practice to optimise carbon cycling but particularly challenging in organic farming. The study suggests a potential to introduce these species in sustainable cropping systems. The objectives and background of this manuscript are somewhat clear. The manuscript needs more experimental work to approve this evidence. Below, some important issues should be revised and resolved;

 

- Abstract

The abstract does not reflect the objectives, methods and important findings for the manuscript properly. These issues should be addressed and resolved properly.

 

- Introduction

The introduction should cover the research question in much more details and the background should be discussed properly. The introduction should cover the literature on this topic as well. Additionally, up to date references should be included.

 

- Methods

Different sections should include more details on how you made. Statistical analysis should be addressed.

Please add more information on the methodologies and approaches used in this article in details.

 

- Results and Discussion

The results are not explained in details. Figures should be explained and their findings should be reported.

Important finding should be highlighted.

The discussion is still poor and  still needs improvement.

The current data should be discussed in regard to the previously published findings and how these new results address the research question.

 

- Conclusions

Conclusion section should address ONLY the significant findings and include the recommended future work that should be conducted in this regard.

 

-References

Up to date references should be included to reveal the up to date information that could support these findings as well.

Author Response

Thank you for your revisions and precious suggestions. The different sections have been revised and rectified, following your indications, in accordance with the revisions provided by the other reviewers.

In particular:

- the abstract has been edited to highlight more clearly objectives, methods and principal results;

- different parts of the introduction have been modified, to clarify and to deeper explain some background information as well as update the bibliography with more recent references;

- more information on the experimental design are given, and the entire statistical analysis section has been rewritten to better highlight the approach used;

- the entire results section has been rewritten trying to highlight important results, whereas other results results are better organised in supplementary materials;

- we added more details of comparing results with trends highlighted in published literature in different sections of results, adding some specific references, in order to better support our findings;

- we have shortened the conclusions, focusing on the most important findings, and recommending possible future studies on the cereal species monitored;

- the references have been completed with some additional paper to reveal more up to date information and to better support in the most important evidences emerged from the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

The ms is well written. Authors have taken care in the analysis of the data.

However the following typographical errors should be corrected for clarity:

Line 36– Check on the sentence; Please change the word origin to originate., in the sentence “….which origin from a low-input  agricultural period could be an alternative..”

 

Line 54 – Did authors mean “Low-input? In the sentence “…. that enable a successful los-input or organic. This is a typo for the word los.

Lines 54 - 5 5 The sentence should be proof read and corrected to impart ease of understanding, namely, “that enable a successful 54 los-input or organic production in condition where it would be not economically viable with 55 mainstream crops.”

 

Lines 61 – 64, should be read and precisely written to impart understanding. The sentence is winding. It should be broken to shorter sentences.

Lines 64  - 69  Sentences in this paragraph are long, winding and makes the meaning lost. This paragraph needs to be carefully proof read. The sentences should be broken to shorter sentences for clarity.

 

Figures:

Line 262:

On Figure 1, it is better to include the beginning zero before the decimal point.

Line  326 - Include the zero at the beginning of the numbers ( For example on lines 326, 349) and throughout the manuscript.

Line 262: Instead of using “left” and “right” in Figure titles, please use the letters (a) and (b).

Author Response

The ms is well written. Authors have taken care in the analysis of the data. However the following typographical errors should be corrected for clarity:

Line 36– Check on the sentence; Please change the word origin to originate., in the sentence “….which origin from a low-input  agricultural period could be an alternative..”

-       Done

Line 54 – Did authors mean “Low-input? In the sentence “…. that enable a successful los-input or organic. This is a typo for the word los.

-       Corrected

Lines 54 - 55 The sentence should be proof read and corrected to impart ease of understanding, namely, “that enable a successful 54 los-input or organic production in condition where it would be not economically viable with 55 mainstream crops.”

-       Thank you for your advice. The sentence has been changed with:

“In fact, these genetic resources can bear traits that enable a successful low-input or organic production in environments where it would be not economically viable with mainstream genotypes.”

Lines 61 – 64, should be read and precisely written to impart understanding. The sentence is winding. It should be broken to shorter sentences.

-       Thank you for your advice. The sentences have been changed following your suggestions.

Lines 64 - 69  Sentences in this paragraph are long, winding and makes the meaning lost. This paragraph needs to be carefully proof read. The sentences should be broken to shorter sentences for clarity.

-       Thank you for your suggestions. With our changes, we tried to clarify the fact that it’s not clear at the moment, from a scientific point of view, if “old” varieties of wheat have higher productivity performances and better quality traits, compared to modern genotypes.

Figures:

Line 262: On Figure 1, it is better to include the beginning zero before the decimal point.

Line  326 - Include the zero at the beginning of the numbers ( For example on lines 326, 349) and throughout the manuscript.

Line 262: Instead of using “left” and “right” in Figure titles, please use the letters (a) and (b).

- done

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my concerns and comments. Only data presentation should be revised 

Author Response

We revised the whole text in particular the abstract and introduction, where we

streamlined the narrative avoiding redundancies added a further reference to highlight the fact that such studies have been carried out for wheat but not for these species [line 112] clarified that the aim of the work was to provide and explore a first consistent dataset, with the aim of introducing the reader to the way the results are presented.

We also made minor improvement to the methodology section, including further details (e.g. scientific names of species, and dates of harvest, lines 164-66).

Minor improvements were also done in the results and discussion section, including correcting an error in the caption of Figure 1, a further discussion reference in lines 325-28, and improvement in the presentation of within-species patterns, including adding a previously missing reference (lines 474-482).

And we added an acknowledgement to the anonymous reviewer for their contribution.